Marsha Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, we are learning that the Environmental Protection Agency is poised to declare any body or company or plant that emits more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide as a major emitter. A body of 435 adults all endlessly emitting hot air certainly will meet that annual threshold. It appears that the EPA and Congress are literally in a race to see who can get there first. Are we going to tax the air we breathe, or are we going to regulate the air we breathe? If CO2 and other greenhouse gases are so dangerous to our environment, the American people truly must be puzzled by the actions of the body this week. While the details of a cap-and-tax system are negotiated behind closed doors, Congress has debated such staggeringly important work as supporting the goals of Public Service Recognition Week and National Train Day. If our environment were truly in serious peril that could only be effectively addressed by a cap-and-tax system, one would think we would be burning our carbon credits debating that bill, not the suspensions we have passed.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his leadership on this issue and for hosting this Special Order hour. I am so pleased to come and join with you and discuss the issues that we have before us with the Democrats' national energy tax, or the cap-and- tax legislation as some call it, or cap our growth and trade our jobs, or, Mr. Speaker, many people refer to cap-and-trade as just that, because it is certainly what they are going to do. Now, we also know that if they don't get their way on cap-and-trade, what they are talking about doing is an end run and coming back around and letting the EPA regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. Indeed, I have a bill, H.R. 391, that I would encourage all colleagues in this House, all Members of this House to sign on and support this bill and keep the EPA from going around against the will of the people and regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting that as we are having this hour tonight and as we are looking at the logic of EPA and the logic of some of my colleagues, I wonder if we have considered that if you look at the EPA's threshold of 25,000 tons of CO2, that would make you a major emitter, if we have considered that the EPA threatens to use that regulation against every business, every farm, every church, or every building in this country. And, of course, before the EPA gets the chance to regulate CO2, many of our colleagues want to come in and tax it right here so that they can both regulate the air that we breathe and tax the air that we both breathe and then that we exhale. The debate that we have before us is not about making energy cleaner; it is not about making energy more plentiful. What we would see happen from this debate is that energy would become more and more scarce, and we also would see that the cost to every family would be more and more expense. So, here we are. We are talking about cap-and-trade; we are talking about the expense of it. And as expensive as energy costs got last year, we are not going to take any action that will make it more plentiful, we are not taking any action that would make it more readily available, we are not taking actions that are going to make it cleaner, and we are not taking actions that are going to make it more affordable. Indeed, the legislation before us would do quite the opposite. So I join the gentleman from Illinois in being from a State, my State of Tennessee, that would be among the hardest hit by this new energy tax and by the efforts that are coming from the other side, indeed, their efforts to make energy more expensive. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have conveniently forgotten how quickly economic slowdowns follow escalating energy costs. They have forgotten how dramatically high gas prices impacted family budgets last summer. They look upon the increased use of mass transit in the wake of those energy costs as a positive development, forgetting that in many rural districts like mine in Tennessee there is no mass transit, there is no bus service that goes from Waynesboro to Adamsville to Selmer. There is no mass transit in these rural communities. And in picking winners and losers--which they do in this legislation; they pick lots of winners and decide who is going to be the losers--they are asking the American people in their bill to make a choice between very expensive energy or no energy at all. All their scheme will cap is American productivity and trade American jobs. Now, I think, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to ask each and every Member of this House, we would all say that we believe in clean air, clean water, and clean energy. We believe in conserving our environment for future generations. Certainly, I grew up in a household with a mother who dedicated much of her life to conservation and beautification and preservation and historic preservation efforts, so much so that in 1997 Keep America Beautiful gave her their lifetime achievement award. We grew up doing the things that helped clean this planet, looking for ways for energy to be more affordable and more accessible. Now, Republicans as a whole believe in that type conservation for future generations. We do not believe that you need to tax the American people out of their house and home to pay for it, a house, by the way, which under a cap-and-trade system is going to be hotter during the summer and colder during the winter. Republicans believe that we have more alternatives than wind and solar as sources for clean, secure energy. We know that we can safely exploit American oil resources to provide for a less expensive transition to alternative fuels. We know that we can power a next- generation electricity grid with safe nuclear power that will allow for practical electric cars and reliable transmission, rather than forcing the costs of energy to explode so that Washington might fund yet another expansion of the Federal Government. Tennesseans know that hydroelectric power is safe and reliable. It is clean. It has powered our State for two generations. What bewilders me is that these kinds of innovative solutions are discouraged under the Democrat cap-and-tax system. It reinforces my belief that this bill is more about revenue than it is about revolutionary energy. We should be doing things to encourage our innovators. We should be doing things that will incentivize exploration and transition to new types of energy, rather than making it more expensive, making it more scarce, and cutting off energy and innovation. Republicans have proposals for safer, cleaner, cheaper domestic energy that will conserve our resources, secure our energy sources, and expand our economy. We do it without picking losers but, rather, by inspiring that innovative spirit that has solved problem after problem after problem in this Nation. We do it without making energy more expensive and more burdensome to the family budget. We do it without making power more scarce, but by making it more abundant. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his leadership on this issue, and I encourage all of our colleagues to join us in making certain that we stand against cap-and-trade and also that we support H.R. 391, which will prohibit the EPA from regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leadership is moving forward on the change that they've promised. Last week, the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, moved forward to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act, with or without congressional consent. This week the Committee on Energy and Commerce is holding hearings on cap-and-tax legislation. And this is what we're learning. The renewable energy requirements in the bill are entirely unrealistic. Currently, 3 percent of our electricity that is generated is by renewable energy, and the chairman's bill is mandating 25 percent by 2025. That would require 20,000 megawatts of renewable energy to come online every year until 2025. That is far above what the projections are, the government-generated projections. So our question is, are we saddling our States and our energy consumers with unrealistic demands and mandates at prohibitively high prices? Well, basically, the Democrat leadership presents a choice. We can acquiesce to bad regulation that will have certain and disastrous impacts on our economy, or we can legislate an even more harmful system. Basically, Mr. Speaker, it's as though, when faced with a gun to our heads, we are taking it and opting to shoot ourselves in the chest.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to honor and recognize 11 truly inspirational women who have each played a part in making the music of Memphis world renown. Memphis's music heritage has been called the ``soundtrack of America'' and these talented artists deserve our thanks and are extremely justified in the recognition bestowed on them today by the Memphis and Shelby County Music Commission. The esteemed emissaries are Jo Bridges, Joyce Cobb, Jackie Johnson, Susan Marshall, Judy Peiser, Di Anne Price, Reba Russell, Linn Sitler, Pat Kerr Tigrett, Deanie Parker and Ruby Wilson. Tennessee is the home of country and blues music and the birthplace of the ``rock and roll.'' We are also proud of the thousands of singers, songwriters, performers, producers, and other music industry professionals that make their homes and livelihood within the state and allow Tennessee to compete with New York and California as a hub of creativity and entertainment. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in both thanking and congratulating the new Emissaries of Memphis Music for their dedication and devotion for enriching our lives with wonderful sound and music. These 11 women are truly worthy recipients of this outstanding honor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his leadership on our alternative budget because, indeed, it is important that we bring forward a budget that is fiscally responsible because the Democrat budget does spend too much, tax too much, borrow too much, and it compromises hope and opportunity for future generations, and that is of such concern to me. It is something that should not be lost in this debate, that after 232 years in this great Nation and 43 Presidents and the debt that was accrued there and for many of us, like me, that's too much. This budget is going to more than double that, and it is reckless. I do think it is irresponsible that my grandchildren, one who is 10\1/2\ months old, one that will arrive in June, are going to be burdened with a $70,000 price tag because of the actions of this House. Indeed, I do see that as irresponsible, and it is something that angers me. It also angers me that section 303 of this bill, it does have an energy tax in there. You can call it anything you want to, but according to MIT, not according to Marsha, but according to MIT, $3,128 per household. Now, that $8 a week tax rebate that you're going to see in your check certainly goes away when compared with $3,128. And Madam Chairman, a previous speaker said we've inherited a mess, the numbers are bad, these deficits are going to continue. You know what, they must have liked the deficits so much that they're going to double and triple them, because that is exactly what they're doing with these actions. Those deficits and that debt should be coming down, but these actions are going to see it double. They're going to triple it. So you must have liked it an awful lot because you're certainly dishing out more of it in the actions you're taking. Someone else said this budget is just a guideline. You know what, Madam Chairman, isn't it interesting, if you don't spend everything that's in that guideline, all of the sudden the bureaucracy yells, well, look what, they cut us. Let's act responsibly.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his great work on our RSC budget, because it is a responsible approach. It is good common sense. It is built on stability. And that is what the American people want to see right now. I am also so pleased that we continue the tax reductions that were passed in 2001 and 2003. One of the things we are hearing from so many of our small business constituents is that they want to be sure that the death tax does not come back in 2010. Of course, we know the Democrat budget does that. And it is so interesting; our budget does something that is important: It leaves money with the taxpayer, leaves it in their pocket. And, Madam Chair, I have heard comments from this floor about failed policies and tax codes being too convoluted. But I will tell you, leaving money in the taxpayers' pockets is neither a failed tax policy nor a convoluted tax policy. It is what ought to be done. They have earned that money. They deserve to keep it. The fact is that our budget would balance, it would come into balance without a tax increase. Without pulling more money out of the taxpayers' pocket, it would come into balance by 2019. That is something that is important for our children, our grandchildren, and for future generations, because we know you get there by making a reduction in discretionary nondefense, nonveteran spending. That 1 percent across-the-board reduction is legislation I have offered every year that I have been in Congress, and I am so pleased it is included in this budget, as it was in 2006 in the Deficit Reduction Act. I commend my colleagues for their good work on this. This is a responsible, stable, commonsense approach to our Nation's fiscal situation. I encourage an ``aye'' vote for the RSC budget.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for the excellent work that he has done on a substitute, for addressing this issue the way it should be addressed. We are all concerned about cigarette smoke and the effects of tobacco on our health, and I don't think that is the debate that is here. But one of the things that concerns me in this debate is that there are some pieces that have kind of been left out, that are not being addressed. Well, we all are concerned about what has happened with teen smoking, with the effects of tobacco on an individual's health. One of the things that has happened is the Synar amendment and the good work that the Synar language has done in reducing teen smoking has been left out, and what we are having brought forward is this bill that will actually give the FDA stamp of approval to some tobacco processes and uses. And for someone as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a community volunteer that has actually worked to address school health curriculums, to address smoking, to fight and work with smoking cessation programs, I know that that is a dangerous step to give the FDA stamp of approval to tobacco usage. In addition to that, this is legislation that is going to build a bureaucracy. It is going to pull the government into our farms, into our manufacturers, into our retailers further and further. But, Mr. Speaker, I think that actually that's a lot of what is going on in this entire Congress, growing the bureaucracy. We're hearing it's going to take 250,000 new Federal employees to implement the stimulus and this massive budget that is before us; new Federal employees, 250,000 new Federal employees. It is building bureaucracies, taking power away from individuals, taking power away from the House and handing it over to a bureaucracy that continues to grow every single day. And the steps that are being taken with moving tobacco to the FDA is another part of that. We know the FDA can't do the job in front of them now when it comes to dealing with policing drugs, looking at contaminated food, addressing the issues that we have had with everything from peanut butter to pistachios. They are not getting the job done, and now we want to pull them on to our farms and into our manufacturing facilities addressing tobacco, and we have processes that already work. But it's not about funding and keeping attention on processes that work. What we know is this is all about growing a bureaucracy. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, this budget of the President taxes too much, it borrows too much, and it spends way too much money. And the focus of the White House should be on what they can do to generate economic growth rather than finding new ways to tax our families, hardworking families. And we hear they are going to be taxed to the tune of $1.9 trillion--with a ``T''--in new taxes. My constituents have had enough of this economic abuse and so have our children and our grandchildren. They don't want the government to continue to spend money they have not made for programs that they do not want. They are worried about the future of their small businesses, they are worried about their retirement plans, and they are worried about the future of those children and grandchildren. So Republicans are offering an alternative that will be there to help ensure our economic prosperity. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this alternative because Americans deserve more than wasteful government spending at unprecedented levels. They deserve freedom and economic prosperity.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. My constituents are tired of Congress spending money they haven't made yet for programs they don't want. According to the CBO, total spending in 2009 is going to be over $4 trillion. The price tag on the President's budget is over $3.6 trillion. Our country can't afford this budget because it spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much money on our future. The CBO predicts that this budget will push our deficit to 9.6 percent of GDP in 2010. That's historical. CBO predicts that this country will run historically high deficits for the next decade. The global demand for American debt will only continue if our economic policies are sound. Although we don't know the limits of the debt market, this budget is going to push us into unchartered territory. As lawmakers, it is our duty to preserve and protect prosperity. If we pass this budget, we will be abusing the economic opportunity for our children and our grandchildren. What kind of protection is that?

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents recently said to me, ``I'm tired of the government spending money I have not made yet for programs I don't want.'' And my constituents are right on this. On top of the trillions that have already been spent, the President's budget is proposing doubling Federal spending by the year 2019. My constituents are saying, ``How are we going to pay for this?'' Well, as we have heard this morning, there is the tax-and-cap scheme which is $646 billion and is going to cost every American family an additional $3,128 per year out of their household budget. There is also the small-business taxes, $637 billion of new small- business taxes. It is going to wipe out any kind of tax reduction that would have gone to the 95 percent of working Americans. So the question becomes: Where does all of this money come from? Well, we know that the Democrat leadership is going to borrow too much, they are going to tax too much, and they are going to spend too much of the taxpayers' money.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk a little bit about the budget issues that are before us and about how we are spending too much, we're borrowing too much and we're taxing too much. Recently one of my constituents came up and she had a child in her arms. It was her 6- month-old grandchild. She looked at me and she said, Marsha, you know, it makes me really angry when you all spend money that I haven't made, but when Congress is spending money that this grandbaby has not made, it just absolutely infuriates me. It makes me want to come to Washington and knock on the doors of the Members of Congress and say, What are you doing to this child's future? Madam Speaker, that is what our constituents are saying when they look at this budget proposal that contains the largest tax increase in history, $1.4 trillion, over a 10-year period of time. Now some of my constituents have said, where do they get this money? Where does this come from and what are they taxing to come up with $1.4 trillion? Well, I want to talk a second about the cap-and-tax proposal that the President and the administration has brought forward. I want to use a quote that the President made in an editorial board with the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008. It said under my plan of a cap- and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. That will cost money. That will pass the money on to consumers. That was in January 2008. What we see is, yes, electricity rates will go up. Every time an individual flips on a light switch, every time they punch the brew button on their coffee maker, every time they turn on their computer, it is going to cost them more money, every single time, to the tune of $3,128 per family per year. That is what we are beginning to see. This is going to increase your cost of doing business in your home every single day of living, that maintenance of life that we all go through. We're very concerned about this part of the proposal, the cap-and- tax. It is part of the $1.4 trillion increase. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back my time, and I thank you for yielding the time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentleman will yield, I hope you will put those figures on the amount of space it would take for the wind turbines and other components to fuel one steel factory. I would imagine your research also shows that one steel factory probably has one power generation area, and it would be interesting to see the amount of acreage required for that. But I would encourage the gentleman to put this on his Website so that constituents of ours who are listening to this debate can pull those down because what we are hearing is as people have moved to growing corn and growing products to make renewable fuels and ethanol and the bio-diesels, but especially the ethanol, we are hearing of food shortages in some areas because corn is not being used for food. And certainly Haiti and some other countries that have food shortages, we have that documented evidence that shows that there is a need to move that production into the food arena and not necessarily into the ethanol area because of the food shortages that are existing in this world today. And certainly also because of the subsidies that are required to make ethanol affordable and to get the amount of energy that is used in producing a gallon of ethanol, to get that down. Certainly research and innovation will help us with the renewables, but we are not to the point where this can become the primary source of our electricity, or it is going to shut down our manufacturing, our productivity, the movement of our transportation fuels, the use of transportation fuels, the movement of products and commodities around our country, and the ability of people to be able to go from one area of the country to another in a reasonable amount of time. It is something that is of tremendous concern to us because as I said earlier, the best economic stimulus is a job. And all of the outside research and the data we have been able to compile shows that this is not going to create jobs, it is going to cost us, and there is going to be a negative impact on our GDP. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentleman would yield, I wish you would read that quote one more time because as we talk about renewables and the renewable standards that are being placed out there that would be so harmful to our electric power generators, I think this is very important.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, my constituents ask this regularly, and I have had an opportunity this week to meet with some of my constituents who are in the auto manufacturing industry and who work in logistics. Their question is always what in the world do people in Washington think they are doing? Are they that removed from what is happening in our communities? Do they not understand how jobs growth takes place? You've got to have some incentives there for jobs growth to take place. Certainly, it seems there is a disconnect here. My constituents know you cannot spend your way to recovery, and you cannot build recovery on a foundation of debt. They absolutely understand that. And they are very concerned that in the midst of this recession, which troubles us all, and as you look at the jobs loss that is taking place, the amount of jobs loss that has taken place the first quarter of this year, we know that to increase taxes, you can go back and look time and again at how things have taken place through our history. Certainly you can look at the late seventies. If you want a recent example, look at what transpired in 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980, I was a young mom at that point in time, 13 percent mortgage on homes, 20 percent inflation. Raising taxes in a recession does not work. We do know that lowering the rate of taxation and spurring economic growth is good for Main Street, it is good for the American people, and it is good for our GDP and for our government and our economy.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. It is so good to be with you. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. You have just been a stalwart on this. As we have looked at what it takes to address the energy needs of our Nation and how we should go about that, of course, we all know that one of the things we have to do is look at all of the above. And we began talking about this last year and spent some time talking about that we needed an all-of-the-above strategy to make certain that we addressed every component that was out there, every possibility that was going to be held. It is an honor to serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee with the gentleman from Illinois. It is also an honor to work with the Select Committee on Energy Independence. We know that this is a direction where we need to move towards energy independence. We know that we need to do this in a thoughtful way. We also know that we need to do this without raising taxes on the American people. Certainly that is possible. As the gentleman and my colleague from Minnesota were both saying, the taxes that are out there are of tremendous concern to us. I appreciate the poster that the gentleman has where it shows what it is going to cost every family for this cap-and-tax scheme that the Democrat leadership is wanting to put in place. The MIT researchers feel that this tax is going to end up being $3,100 per family. That is something that is going to far exceed even the $1,600 that we see there. It basically is a tax every time you turn on the light switch, every time you plug in the coffee pot and every time you turn on the computer. Every single time you go to use any energy source, you are going to be paying a tax. That means if you freeze your food, you're going to pay more. If you cook your food, you're going to pay more. Everything you use is going to end up costing you more, $3,128 per family per year. That is not my estimate. It is not Mr. Shimkus' estimate. That is the estimate from researchers at MIT as they look at this. And CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, also warns us of the burden that this is going to place on our middle income and our working families here in this country. Many of my constituents are saying, ``what in the world is a cap-and- trade, or what is a cap-and-tax?'' And they are asking about how this would go about. And they can't believe that with the greenhouse gasses and the carbon emissions that you would have to go in and buy permits to use this. Indeed, our agricultural community is very concerned about this because what we are hearing from our friends across the aisle is that there would be a tax on every head of cattle. There would be a tax on every pig. What is that going to do? It is going to increase the cost of the food that you eat. We know that it doesn't stop there, and the taxing doesn't stop there. The gentleman has talked some about coal and clean coal technologies. He has talked about nuclear power and the importance of having that in our strategy of how we solve this problem. What is the best way to take action? Of course, we know that it is going to be more difficult for our electric power generators to generate the electricity that we are going to need. We know that for anyone that works or deals with hydrocarbons, it is going to drive their costs up. Certainly our trucking and logistics companies are going to see incredible increases in taxes. All of that doesn't get equated and rolled into the $3,128 per family that this would cost. These are all additional costs that would be seen in the increased cost of commodities that everyone is going to have to pay. Now, one of the things that I have thought was, it's really quite curious, in all of this discussion, we all know that the best economic stimulus is a job. And you can't go anywhere right now without hearing about the economy. We all are worried about the recession and the length of the recession. We are worried about how we can energize this economy. We know the best economic stimulus is a job. And we know that the stimulus plans and the budget, all these ideas that have come from the Democrat side of the aisle, they tax too much, they borrow too much, and they spend too much. We all recognize this. But jobs growth is one of the things that we have focused on. Certainly with pushing the stimulus, we heard from the administration and the Democrat leadership, well, it was going to create 3 or 4 million new jobs. Well, as we have looked at this cap-and-tax proposal alone, just that portion of it, not looking at any other portion of it, we have seen that there are estimates that have come to us from CBO that the cap and tax could cost us as many as 3 or 4 million jobs. So putting this tax in place in the budget would negate all the jobs that they think they would create by going through the stimulus and the money that they have put out there in the form of spending. Also, I think that there has been much discussion about green jobs, and would this proposal create new green jobs? There is a good bit of study on this from Heritage Foundation and some others that say, no, such a proposal would actually reduce economic growth, reduce the gross domestic product and reduce employment opportunities. So for those of us who look at this as an issue of how we recover, what are the steps we take for this economy to recover, how do we reduce the tax burden, and then we look at the analysis not from you and me, but from outside entities, we see that this cap-and-tax scheme would be something that would be a jobs killer and a reduction in the gross domestic product of our Nation. And I yield back to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, in the land of spend too much, borrow too much and tax too much, and in the age of the trillion-dollar deficits, the American taxpayers deserve to know where their hard- earned money is being spent. After the $1.63 trillion spent in the stimulus and TARP bills, we need a system for transparency and accountability. That is why I have introduced the TARP and Stimulus Reporting and Waste Prevention Act. This bill requires complete disclosure of the TARP and stimulus spending, and it goes further than the President's ``Recovery.gov.'' It establishes a waste, fraud and abuse hotline that provides protection to all whistleblowers, including Federal employees. The bill will promote accountability policies for government agencies and companies that benefit from the bailout in the stimulus so that taxpayers know that their money is not going to big bonuses and lavish resorts. We owe it to the taxpayers to ensure that these funds are being used for designated purposes. It is their money, and they deserve to know.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, a wise man once said, ``Treat each federal tax dollar as if it was hard earned; it was--by a taxpayer.'' The Democrats of this House need a reminder that every dollar they have been signing away is a hard-earned American dollar. Let's take that $787 billion stimulus bill that they passed and that the American taxpayers will have to repay. That's going to cost every taxpayer in this country over $4,000. We know that Americans are hurting, that we are in a recession, and that now is no time to raise taxes and increase their share of this national debt. That's all money that they could be using for household necessities. And they are a little bit weary when they hear about projects they're going to be required to fund, like a foot bridge in St. Louis, or $8 billion for the Disneyland to Las Vegas train, or $200,000 for tattoo removal, or millions for the Speaker's mouse. So let's remember those wise words before we start signing off on all these pork barrel spending projects for special interests. Let's treat every Federal taxpayer dollar as what it is, hard earned by the Federal taxpayer.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentlelady from Illinois so much for yielding, and I appreciate her yielding the time to me. And we have other members of our Republican conference who are here, female members, who are coming to talk about the issues that we know are affecting our constituents and we know are affecting women in our districts. As the gentlelady from Illinois has mentioned, the number one thing that we do hear from our constituents, and especially our women small business owners, is their concerns over the economy; and they are concerned about the economic security, the retirement security that is in front of them as they look to winding down their careers. And they are also very concerned about what is happening for the secured opportunities of future generations and the security that they will want to enjoy. I have a chart with me that I think says a lot about what we see happening here in Washington now as well as what is going to be coming in years to come. Let's go back and look at the deficit. We are hearing a lot about the deficit and the data. Some of my constituents last week were saying, well, we continue to hear this comment that they inherited this debt. How could that be? Everyone has been voting on this for years. So we made a chart looking at Federal spending going back to January 2007 through today. And, of course, in 2007 is when all of the problems really started to manifest themselves in the housing industry and leading toward the situations that we saw happening with the banks that began in early 2008, and then moving on into the budget situation that we have today. So we prepared a chart to lay out what has happened since January 2007, with our Federal deficit, which is the line that you will see in green, the graphing in green. Then, discretionary spending, which is that portion of our budget that we actually can get into and make some decisions about how we are going to spend those dollars, and that is where we should be reducing what the Federal government spends. Then, mandatory spending. Much of that is the entitlements which the gentlelady from Illinois just referred to mentioning very appropriately that, yes, indeed, we do have an entitlement crisis that is coming, and that is spending that is going to have to be dealt with in order for the future generations to enjoy security, whether it is economic security, whether it is freedom and opportunity. Take a look at what has happened. You can see where we were in January 2007. And the debt, the Federal debt, at that point in time was right over $8 trillion. Our deficit in 2007 was just over $400 billion. Now let's look at what happened. The first stimulus plan that was passed early last year, $152 billion, you can see what that did to the federal deficit. It really popped it up. You can also see what that did to discretionary spending. And then look at what happened with pre- TARP, the amount of money, the $300 billion, that went into those loans from March to September of 2008 when we were dealing with Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, IndyMac and AIG. You can see what happened with our deficit, which is the green line, the discretionary spending, and the bump-ups that came there, and then you see the mandatory spending rising as we move through that. Then TARP in September 2008, you can see what happened there with the $700 billion and the escalation that has carried forth there, the auto bailout of $14 billion. President Obama's second stimulus, we call this plan B, and that ended up being $1 trillion. You see what it did to our deficit. We are at over $2 trillion in deficit for this fiscal year so far. Also you can see what happened with our discretionary spending. And take a look at what has happened with our mandatory spending through there. And then of course the omnibus, the $410 billion omnibus bill that had passed the House and it is still in the Senate without a resolution to it. So through all of these votes, I will highlight that the Speaker, our President who was in the Senate, and Leader Reid in the Senate, all were ``yes'' votes on that. They were part of driving this deficit and these discretionary spending hikes, the mandatory spending spikes that you are seeing over there also. And by the way, going back to January 2007, that is when the Democrats took control of both Houses, both Chambers, the House and the Senate, and started pushing forward the spending increases. And they have now moved the national debt from just over the $8 trillion that was here to nearly $11 trillion. As of January 3 of this year, the debt was at $10.7 trillion. And as I mentioned earlier, that big green spike over there is for the $2 trillion in deficit spending they have already accrued this year. And we are hearing that once they pass the $410 billion, that it is going to be even higher. And we are also hearing that they are going to come back and ask for more TARP spending. So when I talk with females and with female-owned small businesses in my district, the number one thing that comes up is the economy. And what does this do? Knowing that political freedom and economic freedom are linked, what does this do to future generations? From the women in my district, I have heard repeatedly, they understand that we cannot spend our way out of this recession. You can't spend your way to recovery. You can't spend your way to prosperity. You can't build prosperity on a foundation of debt. And so many of our small business owners understand that. And women every single day come to me and say, Marsha, it is time for people to address these economic issues and do it with wisdom, do it with some forethought, and be very careful that we are not passing on to future generations a debt that they are unable to handle. I was out visiting with some women's groups a couple of weeks ago. A lady came up to me. She was carrying a young infant. And I noticed this because I have a 9-month-old grandson, Jack, and I have another grandchild, Chase, who will arrive in June. And the lady walked up to me with this child in her arms. And she said, ``Marsha, I want to tell you something.'' She said, ``it absolutely infuriates me when Congress spends money I haven't made yet. But now I have got this 6-month old grandbaby. And let me tell you something. It makes me so angry. I want to come to Washington and bang on the doors because it makes me so angry that you're spending money that she has not made yet. And she doesn't even know to be upset with Congress.'' She said, ``I know you're voting `no' on all these spending bills. Please do all you can to arrest the out-of-control spending.'' And I will yield back to the gentlelady from Illinois. I thank you for the time. And I thank you for the efforts to help work to preserve our economic freedom for future generations.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to honor and recognize an outstanding citizen of Germantown, Tennessee, Mr. Doug Warner. For the past 22 years, Doug has volunteered for the Mountain Tennessee Outreach Project (T.O.P) which attends to the spiritual, physical, emotional or social needs of rural Tennessee residents. Doug has led more than 50 trips to the counties in Tennessee this organization aids and brought much comfort to those families in distress. Doug has also been there in times of tragedy by collecting and distributing supplies to aid in the recovery efforts after natural disasters such as the Ivan, Katrina and Rita hurricanes. Besides his work with Mountain T.O.P., Doug has organized numerous other volunteer projects in order to help the lives of his fellow citizens and make his community better. Through his service on the Habitat for Humanity Board, Doug has sponsored and built more than 29 Habitat houses as well as collecting donated furniture and accessories to help these families to a new beginning. Doug and his family continue to be an active part of the Germantown United Methodist Church. Through this service and countless other accomplishments, the quality of life of many Tennesseans has been greatly improved because of Doug's leadership, experience and willingness to give. Congratulations to Mr. Doug Warner on being named Citizen of the Year 2008 by the Germantown, Tennessee Lions Club.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Shelby County, Tennessee's Sheriff Mark Luttrell for being named the 2009 Sheriff of the Year presented by the National Sheriffs' Association. First elected in 2002, Mark Luttrell has served Shelby County residents with strong leadership by placing the public's confidence back in the county's jail operations. Sherriff Luttrell has secured accreditation for both men's and women's jails, the medical unit, and the law enforcement division as well as many countless other achievements for which he is being recognized. Luttrell continues to be an integral member in local and state efforts to fight street crime, including the successful Operation Safe Community. Sheriff Luttrell also serves on the Memphis/Shelby Crime Commission and Memphis Second Chance, an organization which aids first time offenders to transition back into society. Sheriff Luttrell has set a high example of service, leadership, caring, and civic participation that all would do well to follow. Madam Speaker, I congratulate Sheriff Mark Luttrell on this well-deserved award, and ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating his accomplishments. We congratulate Sheriff Luttrell and his family on this wonderful occasion.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, it is so interesting to go home on the weekends and visit with all of my constituents. This past weekend, some of them said, I feel like everything that I am hearing from the leadership in D.C. is focused on fear and envy to push their agenda. The President's budget is just big government reinvented. Here it is, the era of enormous big government. It expands government spending past the traditional no more than 20 percent of GDP that we have always expected, and it is going into the stratosphere. Programs are piled on top of each other to give us what is now a $3.55 trillion budget that has come from this Democrat administration. And the deficits? $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. And this is on top of the stimulus, the omnibus, the ``Housing-us'' bills, that are just ripping through this Chamber at speeds that would make my NASCAR drivers dizzy. You know, some of my constituents suspect that the leadership in this House actually is choosing to confuse the issues. They know you cannot spend your way to recovery.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Absolutely. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding, and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the discussion that is here because, as we have all been home over the weekend and have been working in our districts, meeting with constituents, the economy is the number one issue. I have talked to so many people who are using the words that they are appalled, that they are horrified with what they see happening here. They are very concerned with what they see taking place with the economic policies of the new administration. Indeed, as a broker from one of our fine banks in Tennessee said to me yesterday, the stock market has voted on the Obama economic policies--on Pelosi, Reid and their economic policies--and they have obviously voted ``no'' because the stock market was over 9,000 before this administration took control, and now we see where it is today, which is at 6,700. It is of great concern to us. We know our Nation is in a recession. We know that people are hurting. We know that they want to see something done, and most people fully realize that you cannot declare a war on prosperity and get yourself out of a recession. You both have recognized, Ms. Foxx and the gentleman from Missouri, the quote from Henry Morgenthau and the importance of that, which is that it does not work, that this kind of spending does not work. I brought a chart along that I felt was important to the discussion that we are having. As my colleagues know, the Democrats took control of this body in January '07, and we see where we were with the Federal deficit, the green line. The orange line is discretionary spending, and mandatory spending is in the blue. Now, we continued to hear from the leadership--from Speaker Pelosi, from Leader Reid and from the President--that they inherited this debt, that they inherited an annual deficit, but I think it's important to note that they voted ``yes'' on all of this. It has pushed our spending. You can see what has happened with the spending in the past year alone. Stimulus I was $152 billion. You'll see where it comes in there in '08, the pre-TARP funds. That was from March to September of '08, $323 billion. Then there was TARP, the auto bailout--stimulus II--which was $787 billion. There was the omnibus, which was $410 billion. Now what we have seen happen with the spending is, by the end of '07, the Democrat-led House had moved our same year mandatory spending from $3 billion to $37 billion, and by the end of '08, they'd increased that number to $333 billion.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Indeed, you're exactly right. We had had job growth. We had had economic growth. It was basically unparalleled. The 2001 and 2003 tax reductions had worked. We had not seen this kind of growth since Ronald Reagan. As the chart points out, you can look at where the Federal deficit was, which was at $8 trillion. You can look at where discretionary spending was placed and where our mandatory spending, this blue line, was placed. Now, what we see as the mandatory spending alone is that they grew from $3 billion to $333 billion in a 2-year period of time. So you can see what is happening with our spending. Whether it is our discretionary or our mandatory spending, it is going through the roof, and of course that runs our Federal deficit and our national debt up. This year alone, we're at over $2 trillion in a deficit, and our President has just proposed a $3.5 trillion budget. So we know what is going to continue to happen to these lines. You can look at the CBO scoring--and, see, the CBO is a nonpartisan organization. You can look at what is happening in their scoring and see that we're going to have trillion-dollar deficits as far as we can see with the tight spending that we have brought forth.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I would gladly yield to the gentlelady.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield my time to the gentleman.